
ASSAULT 0^1 MR. SUMNER. 


SPEECH 



OF 


HON. T; S. BOCOCK, of VIKCtINIA, 


DELIVERED 


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JUNE 11, 1856. 

iC 



The Mouse having under consideration the report of the 
* ^ * ^uiriiittee on the alleged assault of the lion. Preston S. 
Brooks on the lion. Charles Sumner, of the Senate, 

Air. BO COCK said; T rise to address the House 
upon this question, at this time, with unfeigned 
feelings of diffidence and reluctance. 1 regret that 
it falls to my lot to come forward to speak after 
the question has been debated by so many dis¬ 
tinguished gentlemen upon both sides of the ques¬ 
tion— and gentlemen, I may say, distinguished 
not moref*for their learning, their eloquence, and 
their ability, than by their tact and success in 
always obtaining the floor exactly at the most 
interesting period of every debate, leaving it to 
such humble members as myself, at a later period, 
to gather Up the fragments left, and to tread the 
paths already worn smooth by them. 

Under these circumstances I do not know that 
I should have said one word upon this question 
at this time but for a personal consideration, 
which will be appreciated by all, and which made 
it appear to me proper that something should be 
said by some member from the State which I have 
the honor, in part, to represent upon this floor. 
I should have preferred it, and had I spoken at 
an earlier period of the debate, would have con¬ 
fined my remarks to a close, and, so far as I could 
make it so, a logical argument upon the points 
involved in this discussion; but at this period I 
must be pardoned if I follow the example which 
gentlemen have set before me, and stray occa¬ 
sionally to seek for matters of interest by the 
way-side. 

And, in the first place, I say to the gentleman 
from Ohio, [Air. Bingham,] who made the first 
long speech which was made on his side of the 
question, and who spoke v/ith much fervor and 
eloquence, that his statements about the institu¬ 
tion of slavery Avere as erroneous as the topic 
itself was out of place. 

To speak of slavery as “ the curse of Kehama, 
which smites the earth with barrenness, that 
crime which blights the human intellect, and 
blasts the human heart, and maddens the human 
brain, and crushes the human soul,” may be 

r 


/ 

% 


good rhetoric, fine declamation, but it is very bad 
history, and worse fact. 

When the gentleman tells me that slavery 
blasts the intellect of the slave, I want him to 
show me where the intellect of the African race 
is better, or even more cultivated in the enlarged 
sense of the word, than among the slaves of the 
southern States.^ Does it madden the human 
brain Then he will perhaps compare for me- 
the condition of the free African of the NortH 
with the slave African of the South, and show 
me how much more madness and idiocy there is^ 
among the latter than among the former. The 
statistics of the census show that it is greatly 
the other way. 

Does it blast the human heart and crush the 
human soul Then he will show me where,, 
among the African race, there is more of happi¬ 
ness, more of Christianity, more of the sweet con¬ 
solations and high hopes of religion, than among 
our servants. Until he can do this he ought not 
to deal ill this empty declamation. I ask the gen¬ 
tleman to look to the facts upon the subject, and 
study them for the purpose of understanding the 
institution, rather than with a predetermination 
to condemn it. 

Sir, what business had this subject of slavery 
and the slave-power in this debate ? Can we not 
consider here a simple matter of assault and bat¬ 
tery, without having the subject of slavery and 
the slave-power paraded before us as a mark for 
the arrows of attack. And this, too, bear in mind, 
by the same gentlemen who are constantly com¬ 
plaining of the aggressions of this slave-power. 
Why, sir, if a simple case of assault and battery 
to avenge a personal insult cannot be considered* 
without an attack upon the slave-power, what 
spectacle will we not soon have ? If Providence, 
in its wisdom, should again visit the earth with 
famine or pestilence—if he should send upon us 
drought, yellow fever, or cholera, we may expect 
to hear these gentlemen furiously proclaiming, 
“ Here is another aggression of the slave power.” 
In their imaginations everything is an aggression 
of the slave power. 









/ 


2 






I suppose, in some parts of the land, they scare 
their children into quiet with tales of the slave 
power; and that the matrons, and the maids, and 
the young men, and the old men, all dream 
dreams and see visions of horror connected with 
the same terrific slave power. Gentlemen doubt¬ 
less suffer much; but the day of their tribulation 
is ended. Memorable day is yesterday likely to 
be in the annals of the country’s history, as the j 
day on which the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. CoMiNsjarose and proclaimed, “We tell you 
plainly, we will no longersubmit to these things. ” 

How, sir, with the deep sorrows of Jeremiah 
broodingupon his heart, did he east his thoughts 
back to the pleasant associations which he had 
enjoyed, and then take leave of them forever! 
How, sir, with the rapt ecstatic hopes of Isaiah 
inspiring his soul, did he look forward to the 
glories which lie hid in the future! Howheartily 
did he rejoice “ that the American people have 
been awakened !” “ Thank God,” said he, “ the 
Senators from Massachusetts have bad the cour¬ 
age to place before the American people the true 
.character of the slave power!” When the vail of 
Mokanna was lifted, the sight w'as too hideous to 
bear. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 
seen the slave power in its true colors, and yet 
lives! Indeed, like Jeshurun, he waxeth fat,and 
kicketh. Whatever it may be—substantial es¬ 
sence, or shadowy spirit—he fears it not. Ay, 
sir, the fiat has gone out; he will submit to it no 
longer. Then, sir, if gentlemen have come to that 
conclusion, let us consider the matter as settled, 
and hear no more about the slaveocracy, and the 
slave power. 

Mr. Speaker, I shall now proceed to present 
some views which have suggested themselves to 
n>y mind, upon the constitutional and legal ques¬ 
tions which have been raised in the course of this 
discussion. The leading facts of the case have 
not been disputed. 1 disagree with the gimtleman 
from Georgia over the way, [Mr. Foster,] who 
last spoke upon this question, in one of the latter] 
positions taken by him, that Ijecause the gentle-1 
man from South t'arolina had been arraigned j 
before the courts of justice, and his sentence had! 
been pronounced, this House had therefore no I 
right to take cognizance of the matter; that the 
gentleman from South Carolina had the right, in 
■fact, to plead in bar of our proceedings, that he 
had been tric'd by a court of justice, and a fine 
had been adjudged against him. 

if a gentleman rises here, in the presence of the 
House, and .strikes down a brother member in 
his place, it would constitute a case of assault and 
battery, and as such the courts of the District 
would have the right to take cognizance of it. 
But it is not only a case of assault and battery, j 
it is also a breach of the j)rivileges of the House, j 
into which the House may inquire. The act is j 
one; the oiien.se may be considered in a twofold ! 
aspect—not only as an ofihnse against the laws] 
of the District, but also against the privileges of j 
the House. | 

1 now come to inquire briefly whether there j 
has been a violation of the privilege.s of the j 
House or of the Senate committed, and if there has, j 
whether we have the power to punish it? Now*, | 
sir, although the majority of the committee did | 
idly let fall the assertion, that a breach of the i 
privileges of the House had been commiUed,Iji 


can scarcely consider them to have been in earnest 
in the declaration. 1 can hardly imagine that a 
single member of the House will seriously say 
that an encroachment upon the rules or privileges 
of this House of Representatives has been com¬ 
mitted. It seems to me that it is enough to pro¬ 
pound the question, what privilege ofthi^House, 
or of any member of it, received any let, bar, 
hindrance, or diminution from the act in ques¬ 
tion.? What privilege had we, individually or 
collectively, before the said act, which we did 
not enjoy at the time, and have not enjoyed ever 
since? None, .sir, none. The matter will not 
bear discussion for a moment. It is no violation 
of the privileges of this House. 

I will now inquire briefly whether it is a viola¬ 
tion of the privileges of the Senate, or of any 
member of the Senate.? The p/iivileges of the 
Senate and the House of Representatives are set 
forth in the Constitution of the United States in* 
the same clause. They are twofold. The firs« 

is, privilege from arrest while attending on the 
session.*? of either House—while coming to or 
going from the same. No man will contend thai 
this attack amounted to an arrest; and, therefore, 
that part of the clause may be dismissed from 
further consideration. The other portion is: 

“And for any speech or dehate in eitiier House tlicy 
sliall not he questfoued in any other pfaee.” 

Mr. Speaker, it has been contended, v^ith great 
force and power, by the gentleman from Geor¬ 
gia, [Mr. CoBK,] that this was intended to apply 
solely to legal rcspon.'gibility, to que.stioning by 
legal process alone, and to- provide merely that no 
man should be held legally responsible for words 
spoken in debate within parliamentary limits, in 
cither House of Congress. I agree with that 
position. V/aa it not intended to confer by this 
clause of the Constitution some peculiar privilegw 
on Senators anti members of the House of Rep¬ 
resentatives ? Is the privilege of freedom from 
assault and battery a peculiai- privilege ? By th« 
common law, as it existed before the Constitu¬ 
tion, and by the laws of every State, every citizen 
of the community had that privilege already. 

by, then, in conferring peculiar privileges on 
Senators and members of the House of Repre¬ 
sentatives, need there be expressly conferred by 
the Constitution a privilege which they have 
already in common with every other citizen. 
Suppose, however, that for the better security of 
the personal rights of Senators and members it 
was intended to confer this privilege. 

It stand.s on the same ground with the other 
privilege marked out by "the gentleman from 
Georgify, it runs parallel with it, and ends with 

it. It is admitted by all—at least it has been 
stated very frequently, and not gainsayed—that 
this privilege, which is-conferred by the British 
statute in very nearly the same words that it is 
by the Constitution, is there construed to extend 
no further than to wmrds spoken. 

The authorities on this subject, including th« 
comparatively recent decision of Lord Eilenbor- 
ough and Lord Denman, arc well collated in a 
speech delivered on the floor of the Senate by .a 
j distinguished Senator from Virginia, [Mr. Hun- 
j TER.] If, in England, a man, under pretext of 
j debate, utters, and then publishes and circulates, 

[ libelous matter, he becomes responsible in a 
: court of justice. He can there be sued for libel. 














nt>d damages recovered. The legal exemption 
then ceases, and of course any peculiar personal 
exemption ceases with it. 

Under this doctrine, if Mr. Summer’s speech, 
as printed and circulated by himself, contained 
language which was in fact libelovis, he became 
responsible in a court of justice. That exemp¬ 
tion ceasing, all others resting on the same basis 
ceased with it. 

As we have taken the language from the Brit¬ 
ish statute, we may well refer to British con¬ 
struction as entitled to weight here. But I think 
that the American courts, adopting the spirit of 
our institutions, have gone further to restrain the 
abuse of privilege than the British courts have. 

If I understand correctly the rule in America, 
it is this’ The privilege wiis’intended to protect 
members only in the legitimate discharge of their 
duty, and extends merely to speeches and debate j 
legitimately arising in the course of parliament¬ 
ary proceedings. If a man makes a pretext of 
parliamentary discussion, to wreak his malice on 
his personal enemy; if he pour out his wrath 
and vituperation “ contra morem parliamenta- 
riwm,” he of course forfeits his privilege. Where 
malice begins, privilege ends. The straight¬ 
forward road alone is protected. If a man de¬ 
parts from that, he steps out from his cover and 
exposes himself to danger. My limited time 
w~i)l not allow me to quote a multiplicity of author¬ 
ities. Better few and to the point. The pith of 
Judge Story’s teaching on the subject is con¬ 
tained in about a single line: “ No man,” says 
he, “ ought to have a right to defame others, 
under color of the performance of tlte duties of 
bis office.” 

Chancellor Kent states the law in England thus: 

“ That petitions to the Kin<r or to Parliament, or to tlie 
Secretary «f War, for any redress of griev.ance, are privi 
leged comnmnicatiows, and not actionable libels, provided 
tlie privilege is not abused. But if it appear that the com¬ 
munication was made maliciously, and without probable 
•cause, the pretext under which it was made, aggravates 
?Jie case.” 

The Supreme Court of the United States, in 
the case of White vs. Nichols ct al., (3 How¬ 
ard,) says that, “by able judges of our own 
country, the law of libel has been expounded 
in perfect concurrence with the doctrine given by 
Chancellor Kent.” 

The same court, in the case referred to, says 
that they have examined the authorities which 
treat of the doctrine of slander and libel, partic¬ 
ularly with reference to what have been styled 
“privileged communications,” and they an¬ 
nounce their opinion thus: 

“ Proof of express malice in any written publication, &c., 
will r(!nder that publication libelous in its cliaracter, and 
actionable, and will subject the author ami publisher 
thereof to all the consequences of libel.” “ And we think 
that in every case of a proceeding like those ju.st eimrner- 
nted, falsehood and the absence of probable cause will 
amount to proof of malice.” 

The whole scope of the doctrine goes to show 
that he who pleads privilege must keep himself 
strictly within the line of duty. 

What Mr. Jefferson says in his Manual is 
known to all. It is simply that the privilege of 
speech or debate in either House “is restrained 
to things done in the House in a parliamentary 
course.” “ For he (the member) is not to have 
privilege, contra niorem parliamentarium, to exceed 
the bounds and limits of his place and duty.” 


Such is this doctrine of “ freedom of speech” 
in this country. 

Thus far have I considered it as a question of 
law. I come now to investigate it ns a question 
of right and ju.stice. Because we happen to be 
members of Congress, will it be pretended that 
we are at liberty to rise in our places, and, with 
absolute impunity, abuse, malign, and slander 
each other, or any other penson we m*ay choose? 
The doctrine is absolutely monstrous. Nor is 
its meanness diminished by saying that a major¬ 
ity in framing their rules must proj)erly restrict 
debate. We know too well that rules are often 
broken now-a-days. How many of the speeches 
delivered on this question have conformed to our 
rule, which requires the debate to relate strictly 
to the subject under consideration? Scarcely 
one. 

Besides, the gentlemen of the North are largely 
in the majority on this floor. Sectional feeling runs 
high. It may be agreeable to them to abuse the 
southern members—their constituents, their insti¬ 
tutions, their families, &c. Sliall we be required 
to submit to it all, and be utterly without redress? 
Surely not; it is impossible. We have no such 
right, and could not enjoy it, if it were given. Say 
by express law, if you choose, that members of 
Congress shall enjoy perfect freedom of debate, 
and may abuse, and traduce, and malign whom¬ 
soever they choose. The right will be worth 
but little. There can be no royal prerogative of 
slander in this country. You may draw around 
it the strongest muniments of legal defense; you 
may make the sheriff and his posse the warders on 
the tower; you may make instruments of pun¬ 
ishment to bristle on the walls, still the immunity 
will not be perfect. When it begins to throw its 
venom fiercely around, injured sensibility will 
revolt, and aroused manhood will still occa¬ 
sionally break over and inflict condign punish¬ 
ment. A broken head will still pay the penalty 
for a foul tongue. 

Think, sir, of American character, how sensi¬ 
tive, yet how brave; how easily wounded, yet 
how quick to avenge the injury ! Better death 
than disgrace ! Can you, then, by legislation make 
American gentlemen submit to traduction with 
composure? Never! never, sir! You must first 
tame our high hearts, and teach them the low beat 
of servility; you must make our Anglo-Saxon 
blood run milk and water in our veins; you must 
tear from the records of history the pages which 
tell the deeds of our heroic ancestry, and per¬ 
suade us that we have descended of drabs and 
shrews. When you have done that, and changed 
Billingsgate into rhetoric, and railing into elo¬ 
quence, you may then convert the Senate and the 
House of Representatives into two great Schools 
for scandal, in which your Backbites and your 
Crabtrees may strut tlieir “ hour” on the stage 
and feel happy. Then, too, you may build up 
your great doctrine of woman’s rights; for where^ 
ever your Backbites and your Crabtrees are the 
prominent actors, the Lady Sneorwells and Mrs, 
Candors should take their parts to make the play 
complete. If this is your doctrine, gentlemen^ 
bring on your Theodore Pavkt'rs, and your Ward 
Beechers, and your strong-^minded women, and 
have a good time of it here and in the Senate. 
Gentlemen will retire voluntarily from both with' 
out the process of expulsion. 













Slander never can, (in this country,) under any 
guise, in any form of authority, enjoy perfect 
immunity, and have 

“ As large a charter as the wind, 

To blow on wlioiri it pleases.” 

Surely there has been no dispo.sition or inten¬ 
tion to give it such immunity or liberty hereto¬ 
fore; and any such construction is in the teeth of 
law and in the face of justice. 

This, then, being the doctrine of law and jus-1 
tice, let me apply it to the case in hand. j 

I believe that Mr. Sumner’s speech was made ' 
“ contra moremparliamentarium;^’ that under guise I 
of debating the Kansas bill, he sought occasion j 
to pour out his private resentments,and vent his 
personal malice. In thus stepping beyond his 
parliamentary right, he lost his constitutional 
protection, and became liable as any other citizen ! 
would be. The assault and battery committed 
on him occupies, in this regard, the same ground, 
not lower, not higher, than the same assault and 
battery upon any other person. 

It has been asked, if Mr. Sumner was liable to 
an action of libel, why not pursue him in the 
courts of justice.^ That question may as well be 
asked in any other case of assault and battery. 
If a man insults you in a public crowd, or tra¬ 
duces your wife or daughter, and you knock 
him down, it may be asked, why not sue him.^ 
That, surely, is the legal course. But there are 
offenses ofsuch a nature, that men cannot always 
wait for redress on the slow and uncertain course 
of legal proceedings. The courts are then to in¬ 
quire how much is to be pardoned to the weak¬ 
ness of human nature under the circumstances.? 

This is the great case of “ the violation of the 
freedom of speech ” in the person of Mr. Sumner. 
He wantonly gave an insult, and was punished, 
rashly perhaps, for it. Why, then, Mr. Speaker, 
should Massaciiusetts become so much excited 
on the subject.? Will she adopt the quarrels and 
take up the fights of her sons wherever they go.? 
Freedom of speech is a right of the private man 
as well as of the public man. Whenever a son of 
hers gives an insult and gets a knock, is she to 
rush forth and cry out “ that the freedom of 
speech has been violated.?” I have known parents 
who identified themselves with their children in 
all their quarrels and broils with their school¬ 
fellows and playmates; and the consequence in 
such cases always is, that the parent gets the 
more ill-will, and the children the more ill-treat¬ 
ment. 

Massachusetts has sent a request to each mem¬ 
ber of this House to vote for the expulsion of a 
member, the gentleman from South Carolina. As 
she has made this polite request of me, I wish to 
give a kind reply, lam very apprehensive that 
she is in great danger of overtaxing herself. We 
have all seen that Massachusett.s is at present 
engaged in the high vocation of fixing the desti¬ 
nies of an empire, as it were, lying west of the 
Mississippi. Here isthe seat of her deadly fight 
with the “awful slave power.” She is also en¬ 
gaged in the battle of “ personal liberty,” as she 
phrases it, against the Constitution of the United 
States. While thus engaged, if she should at the 
game time attempt to follow her citizens through¬ 
out the world, and protect them from assaults and 
batteries, she would have much to do—too much 
10 do. Why need she do it, after the valiant 


speech of yesterday, made by one of her Repre¬ 
sentatives.? Why need she regard such men as 
but chickens, and everybody else as hawks and 
i kites, that upon every conflict she should jump 
j out, and strut, and flap her wings, and croak, and 
scream.? [Great laughter.] Valiant men like 
these can take care of themselves, nor need the 
shelter of the maternal wing. Lether trust them, 

I and doubtless they will repay a mother’s trust U) 

! the satisfaction of a mother’s heart. 

I But I have been led too far from the strict line 
I of the discussion. So much stress has been laid 
I upon the alleged violation of Mr. Sumner’s 
j “freedom of speech so much both of false doc- 
! trine and of bad feeling have been exhibited on 
I that subject, that I have dwelt long upon that 
I branch of the argument. Tshall now hurry more 
rapidly onward. 

I believe I have very fully exploded the claim 
of privilege arising under that clause of the Con- 
I stitution which relates to freedom from arrest and 
freedom of debate. 

j The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bingham] rather 
I incidentally alluded to another clause of the Con- 
i stitution, as affording an immunity which has 
' been violated in this case. 

I He says “ we have all sworn to support that 
Constitution which declares that the person of the 
Senator and citizen alike shall be inviolate.” 

I suppose the gentleman had reference to article 
four of the amendments to the Constitution, which 
speaks of “ the right of the people to be secure in 
their persons,” &c. Now, sir, it is strange that 
so earnest and eloquent a gentleman should have 
taken so short-sighted a view of any constitu- 
! tional provision upon which he hangs such grave 
comments. Read it, and what does it amount to.? 
Nothing more than a provision agaiiist “ unrea¬ 
sonable searches and seizures.” It is a prohi¬ 
bition against what was known as “ general war¬ 
rants;” that is, warrants authorizing seizures 
and searches without a proper specification, duly 
verified on oath or affidavit, stating the existence 
I of probable cause, and the person to be seized, 

! or the place to be searched. Lawyers understand 
this very well. The clause has no reference 
whatever to “inviolability of person” against 
assaults and batteries. I respectfully submit, 
therefore, that the gentleman might very well 
have spared his allusions to the violated oath of 
tlie gentleman from South Carolina. I am aware 
that another class of privileges has been con¬ 
tended for. 

It is held that the Senate and House of Repre- 
! sentatives, by virtue of their existence as polit¬ 
ical bodies, enjoy the right of proceeding undis¬ 
turbed, and of having the attendance of all their 
members. This source of privilege has been 
declared in the cases of Gunn and Baldwin, and 
I of Houston and Stansbery, and perhaps others, 

I in the House of Representatives. I have very 
; little regard for congressional precedents at best. 

I know too well how inconsiderate and biased 
our action very often is. But precedents founded 
on a necessity that exists by our own fault ought 
to weigh nothing in constitutional construction. 
It is competent for the law-making power to pro¬ 
vide ample protection for the two Houses of 
Congress. Its failure to discharge its duty can 
scarcely create a necessity which will be a just 
ground for the employment of powers not 




















5 


ranted by the Constitution itself. But if that 

octrine be allowed, it must be conceded that the 
privileg^es of the two Houses arising from this 
source extend only so far as may be necessary 
for the purpose in view. If it be admitted that 
the withdrawal of a member from his duties 
in the Senate of the United States would be an 
invasion of the implied privilege of that body, 
still I say that the privilege of the Senate was 
only invaded to the extent that Mr. Sumner was 
unable to attend upon his duties, and if he was 
safely able to attend the next day, then the privi¬ 
lege of the Senate was not invaded at all. 

Thus, Mr. Speaker, it appears that, if any priv¬ 
ilege of the Senate has been invaded, it is an im¬ 
plied one, and not one expressly given by any 
clause in the Constitution. But, sir, admitting 
that the privilege of the Senate has been invaded 
to the extent that one of its members was incapa¬ 
citated from attending to his duties, then I inquire 
how far this House has control over the subject- 
matter so as to punish Mr. Brooks; and I say 
that, in my judgment, it has none whatever. 
What are the powers of this House to punish its 
members ? Those of the House and of the Senate 
are contained in one and the same clause of the 
Constitution. It is as follows: 

“ Each House may determine the rules of its proceeding, \ 
punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the i 
concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.” 

Now, observe how those passages of that 
dause stand related. The phrase, “each House 
may determine the rules of its proceedings,” and 
the phrase, “ punish its members for disorderly 
behavior,”are in immediate connection with each 
other. Each House may lay down its own rules, 
and then require its members to obey those rules. 
Disorderly behavior means behavior contrary to 
the rules of order; and the placing of them in 
this connection shows that exactly that idea was 
in the minds of those who framed that clause. 
Each House may punish its members for diso¬ 
beying its rules. If you do not employ this limita¬ 
tion of the phrase, “ disorderly behavior,” what 
other can there be ? Can you follow a member 
to the other end of the avenue to see whether he 
is guilty of insolence to the President ? Can you 
follow him home to the bosom of his family, to 
ascertain how he treats his wife and children, and 
servants .i* If in the recess between the two ses¬ 
sions of Congress a member should think proper 
to visit foreign lands, can the eye of this House 
follow him there, and watch his behavior to the 
crowned heads, to the queens and the maids of 
honor.^* Will you go with us to our lodgings at 
night, and there take note of our uprisings and our 
downsittings, our outgoings and our incomings? 
Why, the idea is absurd. If the doctrine of gen¬ 
tlemen opposite is correct, then our power to 

unish is unlimited also, and for any little mis- 

ehavior the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Camp¬ 
bell,] sitting as a grand inquisitor, may have 
you or me called to the bar, and have sentence of 
death pronounced upon us. According to the doc¬ 
trine of these gentlemen, there is no limitation 
whatever. If you can punish to one extent, you 
can to another. You can follow a member any¬ 
where, even, as I have said, across the water, 
watch, through your spies, his disorderly behavior 
to Clueen Victoria, or any of her maids, and when 
he comes back, call him up before you, and pro¬ 


nounce sentence of death upon him. And that 
doctrine is to be proclaimed in the American Con¬ 
gress in this nineteenth century! We warn you 
against such a doctrine as this, so latitudinous, 
so uncertain, and so unconstitutional. Let us see 
what the Constitution of the United .States says 
in one of the articles of the amendments: 

“ Nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to 
be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” 

If for the same offense no man can be twice 
put in jeopardy of his life or limb, what does 
the doctrine of these gentlemen amount to? It 
amounts to this, that for a little misdemeanor, 
for which you could not be put in jeopardy by a 
court of justice, you can be sentenced to death 
by this House. But if it rises to a great offense, 
for which you may be tried before a court, and 
condemned to imprisonment or to death, then 
this House has no such power oyer you. The 
absurdity of such doctrine is palpable. Its enorm¬ 
ity is revolting. 

Mr. Speaker, the only reasonable construction 
of that clause of the Constitution under consider¬ 
ation, is that each House may punish its mem¬ 
bers for disorderly behavior committed in their 
capacity as members of the House against the 
rules of the House; and by such punishment as 
affects them peculiarly as members of the House, 
by the suspension of their privileges as members 
of the House, by reprimand or rebuke, or by 
something appropriate to the discipline of a body 
of this sort, and not rising to the height of expul¬ 
sion, which is afterwards specially granted, but 
upon a condition annexed. 

The clause goes on and says: “ and may,with 
the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.” 
That comes in the same connection; and I should 
hold as an original question, that it belongs to 
the same great idea, that the House can punish 
a member for disorderly conduct as a member of 
the House, by appropriate punishments, and 
that in extreme cases, where two thirds unite, 
they may cut off an unruly member by expul¬ 
sion. I must admit that precedent is the other 
way, however. 

It was held by the Senate, in the cases of Blount 
and of John Smith, and perhaps others, that the 
power to expel members is not to be confined to* 
offenses committed in the House, or as members 
of the House, or against the rules of the House, 
but may be exercised for disgraceful conduct com¬ 
mitted anywhere during the term of service. This 
is the doctrine of the English authorities unques¬ 
tionably. It is perfectly w'ell settled, also, that 
the offense for which a member may be expelled 
must be one which reflects disgrace, and shows 
that the character of the man is corrupt. 

Judge Story, in his Commentaries on the Con¬ 
stitution, speaks of it as a power given to reach a 
member who “ might be so lost to all sense of 
dignity and duty, as to disgrace the House by 
the grossness of his conduct.” 

The Senate expelled one of its members (Mr. 
Blount) in 1797, for the reason that he attempted 
to bribe an Indian agent in the employment of 
the Government, from which it appeared that his 
character was corrupt. 

The case of John Smith, a Senator from Ohio, 
whom it was proposed to expel from that body, 
because he had been indicted for high treason 
along with Aaron Burr, was referred to a com- 






6 


mittee, of which John Gl. Adams was a member. 
Mr. Adams from that committee says, that “ the 
high trust of legislation should be in pure hands,” 
and placed himself upon the ground, that the 
right of expulsion was intended to preserve the 
purity of the National Legislature. All the cases j 
in which it has heretofore been seriously pro- I 
posed to exercise this right, were cases involving j 
the purity and integrity of the member. That is 1 
the view of common sense. You should only 
expel a member whose character is such as to 
render him unfit longer to constitute one of the 
National Legislature. 

I remember—though 1 do not like to refer to 
the incident—thatatthe formerpart of this session 
a gentleman over the way rose and stated that 
another member of the House had offered him a 
bribe to affect his vote. That, sir, was a charge 
affecting the purity of a member of the House. 
It is precisely the offense, viz. bribery, for which 
Blount was expelled from the Senate, and comes 
clearly within the scope of Mr. Adams’s exposi¬ 
tion. Yet the members of the House sat patiently 
and quietly under that thing. Nobody called for 
a committee to examine into it. It has slept 
soundly from that time to this. But here, in a 
case of mere assault and battery, gentlemen say 
it is a most heinous offense, and expulsion ought 
to be employed to punish the offender. Can any 
man persuade himself that an assault and battery 
renders the perpetrator impure, or aflects the in¬ 
tegrity of his action as a member of this House? 

1 defy the production of any case of expulsion ! 
for assault and battery in the previous history of [ 
the House or of the Senate. Surely there is some , 
bias or sinister purpose at the basis of this move- j 
ment; something beyond a simple desire to do 
what duty requires. 

This, sir, is the full extent of the power of 
this House to punish its members, so far as that 
power can be derived from the express grants of 
the Constitution. 

Implied power to punish is claimed, however, 
as well as implied privileges. It is said that the j 
privileges which result from the necessity of self- 
preservation would be worth nothing unless 
there was power in the Senate and House to 
punish the violation of them. Why could not 
such violations be punished by the courts or 
otherwise, as law might direct? Why vest such 
discretion in this House? Dangerous as this 
claim, sometimes put under the guise of punish¬ 
ing for contempt, appears, yet it is sustained by 
authority of great weight. Numerous cases 
have occurred in this House and the other, in 
which the doctrine appears to be recognized. I 
need not enumerate them. 

But there is an authority on the subject stronger 
than any congressional precedent. It is the 
decision of the Supreme Court, as delivered by 
Mr. Justice Johnson in the case of Anderson vs. 
Dunn. In that case it is clearly held that each 
House may exercise the power necessary for self- 
preservation, hut it is equally clearly laid down 
that the power to be employed must be the “ least 
possible power adequate to the proposed end.”! 
From the ground upon which this power is rested } 
by Mr. McDuffie and Chancellor Kent, us well as i 
the Supreme Court, this limitation follows as a 
necessary consequence. Each House may exercise 
the power absolutely necessary for its own self¬ 


preservation. It cannot go further. One House 
cannot undertake by its own authority to protect 
the other. It may well be asked, who made us 
guardians and protectors of the Senate? If you 
take the power, you must take it with the limita¬ 
tions. If we do not, then what shall restrain us? 
Shall there be no bounds to our discretion, except 
our own will. Shall we construe the acts of our 
members into crimes, and visit them with punish¬ 
ment at our absolute discretion. 

Implied powers, ahv’^ays odious, are most odi¬ 
ous when they assume the form of implied pow'er 
to punish for undefined and constructive offenses. 
Look, sir, at the efforts which have been made to 
secure certainty and precision in such matters. 

It is provided in the Constitution, that no “ ex 
post facto law shall be passed;” that no person 
shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, 
without due process of law;” and “that in all 
criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the 
right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial 
juVy.” 

But what avails all this if here a prejudiced tri¬ 
bunal may make crimes at their own discretion 
of acts already committed, and apply such pun¬ 
ishment as their passions may dictate ? Why 
maintain the doctrine that penal laws are to bg 
strictly construed, that is, that where express 
power to punish is given, the letter of the law is 
not to be exceeded, when here there is no letter, 
and nothing but prejudice and passion to put 
bounds to authority ? Why refuse to make each 
House the judge of its own privileges, as was 
done in the Federal convention, with full author¬ 
ity to punish their violation, when the same thing 
is now to be accomplished by implication. Why 
talk about law or liberty or rights, if we are at 
the absolute mercy of a majority of such a body 
as this ? Have oppression and absolutism been 
driven out of our courts of justice to take refuge 
here ? Has the Star Chamber court been crushed 
in England by the weight of public indignation 
to be erected again in the American House of 
B.epresen tatives ? 

Sir, this is a revolting doctrine. If it be true, 
we walk daily amid concealed traps and hidden 
snares. We hear the hiss of the viper, but we 
know not where he lurks; we see the gleam of the 
dagger, but know not when it will strike. The 
gentlemen on the other side are in the majority 
now, but their day may soon pass. If there be 
spirit in our people, it will soon pass. Let me 
say to them, in the language of Lord Strafford, 
when on trial for constructive treason: “ Bewarg 
you do not awake these sleeping lions, by the 
searching out some neglected, moth-eaten records; 
they may one day tear you and your posterity in 
pieces.” I think I may claim with confidence, that 
implied power to protect ourselves does not ex¬ 
tend to the protection of the Senate. That body 
must take care of itself. Then how do we get 
jurisdiction of this case? We have jurisdiction 
of the person, but it is requisite that we should 
also have jurisdiction of the subject-matter. This 
we have not, because it was the Senate, and not 
this House, whose self-preservation was aflected. 

Now, sir, I wish to call the attention of the 
members of the House to the positions which I 
have taken. The only right of punishing its 
members which can be contended for as being in 
the House of Representatives is, first, for disor- 















derly behavior; and that applies only to disor- | 
derly behavior in the House, or as members of i 
the House. Then there is the power, by a two- 
thirds vote, to e'icpel a member; but this is to be 
exercised for offenses which affect the purity and 
integrity of the member. Then there is the right 
of self-preservation, by which we may exercise 
only the least possible power adequate to the end. 
Now, by virtue of which of these rights may we 
expel Mr. Brooks ? Has he been guilty of dis¬ 
order in the House, or in his character as a mem¬ 
ber of the House ? Has he done an act affecting 
his purity or integrity of character? Has he 
interfered with the safety of this House? He has 
done neither. * ^ 

Now, sir, again: what right have you under 
either of these claims of power to censure any j 
member for disorderly conduct, not committed 
in this House, nor in his capacity as a member 
of the House? You cannot show it. It is not 
under that clause which says that each House 
may punish members for disorderly behavior. It 
is not under theexpulsion clause. It is not under 
that power given by the decisioF of the Supreme 
Court, that this Flouse may protect its own exist¬ 
ence. Where do you get the power, then, to 
cemsure my colleague, [Mr. Edmondson,] or the 
other gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. 
Keitt?] It is an usurpation. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, I come to say one word in 
reference to the point of this case in which I am 
most particularly interested. I desired to speak 
on this subject because it involves great questions 
of constitutional right and constitutional priv¬ 
ileges, and especially because unjustly, if you 
look to the facts, and unjustly and improperly, 
if you look to the Constitution and to the rights 
of the House, you are seeking to involve a col¬ 
league of my own and one of my most valued 
friends. I ask how is, it that they have brought in 
the gentleman from Virginia for censure in regard 
to his course in this transaction? What has he 
done that an honorable man ought not to have 
done? When the gentleman from South Caro¬ 
lina met him and told him in confidence what 
were his views and purposes in reference to Sen¬ 
ator Sumner, did the gentleman from Virginia 
persuade him to make the attack? Did he sug¬ 
gest to him motives for carrying out sui'h acourse? 
No such fact appears in the case. Was it his 
duty, under the circumstances, to have violated j! 
the confidence reposed in him, and to have given 
public information of what lie had heard? It 
would be the first time he ever betrayed a friend. !j 
Will this House forbid confidence between itsh 
members, and require a man to whom informa- ji 
tion has been thus communicated, to turn public ij 
informer against his friend ? If this be its require- !| 
merit, then Henry A. Edmondson is incapable, Ij 
by nature and raising, of loyal submission; if [i 
this is to be the line of honorable, high-minded | 
conduct which this House is to impose upon its | 
members, then, sir, I want no part or fellowship | 
in their councils or their fame. I want to be one i 
of those who are to be proscribed and punished. 

But, sir, 1 wish to say that the gentleman from 
South Carolina did not inform the gentleman from 
Y'irginia of his intention to make an attack. He 
informed him that he was going to call upon the 
Senator from Massachusetts, and demand an 
explanation for language published in his speech. 


My colleague had good reason to suppose that the 
explanation would be given. That is, he had the 
conviction that it ought to be given, and there¬ 
fore he had reason to expect that it would be, 
and he had the assurance to that extent that no 
assault would be made. 

And, sir, how was the information upon which 
the majority of the committee propose to censure 
the gentleman from Virgina derived? From his 
own statement, made before the committee, with¬ 
out any knowledge, on his part, that he was on 
trial. 

Notwithstanding the acknowledged maxim of 
law or constitutional provision, that no man shall 
be compelled, in a criminal case, to testify against 
himself, it is now proposed to punish my col¬ 
league upon no evidence except his own, called 
for by the committee. Sir, the heart of the gen¬ 
tleman from Ohio [Mr. Campbell] could not 
have beat with its usual generous impulses, when 
he agreed to that resolution. I cannot belie^Y; 
that he acted upon the impulses of his own feel¬ 
ings, or upon his calm, unbiased judgment. It 
may have been done in an unguarded moment; 
or it may be that his mind was operated on by 
some other influence. There are some facts bear¬ 
ing: on this point which should be recollected. 

There are certain newspapers in the northern 
section of this Union which, in my humble judg¬ 
ment, seek to fan the flames of civil war between 
the two sections of this great Confederacy—not 
that they wish to tajj^e part in the danger—not 
they; they are peace men, I believe. They wish 
the war for the same reason that a burglar burns 
a house—that is, for plunder; they want political 
plunder. These newspapers declared, at the time 
the affair happened, that there had been a con¬ 
spiracy on the part of southern men to assail Sen¬ 
ator Sumner. The idea of a conspiracy would, 
it was thought, increase northern irritation. And 
it will be recollected that the next day after the 
occurrence, tlie gentleman from Ohio introduced 
into this House a resolution with a preamble de¬ 
claring tliat an assault had been committed upon 
Senator Sumner by the gentleman from South 
Carolijia and “ ct/icr me77i6e?’s,” carrying out the 
same idea of a conspiracy. When the examina¬ 
tion was made, there appeared nothing in the 
conduct of my colleague to condemn; but it was 
necessary to carry out the idea of a consi^iracy, 
and therefore he must be censured. 

But, sir, the gentleman upon whom this cen¬ 
sure is sought to be cast may well look with 
scorn upon your impotent malice. This House 
cannot hurt him. In the State in which he and 
I have cast our lots, or in which they were cast 
by nature, i tell you that many generous hearts 
beat with admiration and love for him. His 
friends—and their name is legion—stand ready 
t6 sustain him against your threatened injustice. 
You seek to tarnish his escutcheon — many 
friendly hands are already stretched out to wipe 
off the stain. You seek to inflict upon him a 
wound—thousands of warm hearts are gathering 
round him to pour in the balm of sympathy. 
You seek to crush such a man—you do but build 
him up. He is known here, and everywhere, as a 
man wfiose merits are only equaled by his modesty. 
Though he has sat silently here, session after 
session, and permitted the honors of debate, 
and even of leadership, to be borne off by his 




















"8 


inferiors, he is known to be a man of high gifts. 
And for noble generosity, for high magnanimity, 
for chivalrous courage, for all the qualities that 
constitute the man and ,the gentleman, I will not 
say that he has not equals, but I will say that he 
has no superiors. I feel that I have pronounced 
the judgment of this House, and of this country. 


,,y,BRARY OF CONGRESS 


0 027 il9 786 


and all your censu 
sir. If under such 
pretext, and with such color of authority, this 
House shall pass a censure upon Henry 
A. Edmondson, it will but bring its own action 
into ridicule, and its own authority into con¬ 
tempt. 


Printed at the Office of the Congressional Globe. 


I 






/ 







' ' ‘ '■ J 

■ ■'] . 














